Edward L. Widmer’s The Living Declaration is framed as a
“biography” of the Declaration of Independence. This genre has grown popular in
recent years amid the commercialisation of the American founding. In mainstream
liberal scholarship, these biographies often serve not as critical examinations
of revolutionary ideas but as tools to reinforce the current ideological
framework. Despite its engaging writing style and clear narrative, Widmer’s
book fits well within this tradition.
The Declaration of Independence isn't a neutral document; it
serves as a revolutionary manifesto. Its core principles—equality, popular
sovereignty, and the right to revolution—have significantly influenced major
social conflicts throughout American history. Any in-depth analysis must
address the radical implications of these ideas for today's society. However,
Widmer avoids this challenge, presenting a cleaned-up, heritage-focused version
that downplays the Declaration’s revolutionary significance and reframes it as
a civic symbol aligned with capitalist elites.
The Declaration as a
Product of World-Historical Crisis
The Declaration of Independence was more than a
philosophical concept created by Jefferson and his team. It signified a
profound global crisis: the fall of the ancien régime, the rise of capitalist
social relations, and the emergence of a revolutionary bourgeoisie. This new
class's struggle against feudal absolutism drastically changed the world.
A Marxist reconstruction starts not with Jefferson’s writing
or Locke’s essays, but with the material changes in Atlantic capitalism during
the eighteenth century. The Declaration served as the ideological manifestation
of a society in flux, during a period when the emergent bourgeoisie aimed to
dismantle feudal political structures while maintaining their economic base in
private property. Its roots are deeply intertwined with the inherent
contradictions within bourgeois society.
By the mid-1700s, the North American colonies had become
deeply connected to Atlantic capitalism. The production of commodities such as
tobacco, wheat, timber, and rum, as well as the use of enslaved labour, created
a class of colonial merchants, planters, and professionals whose interests
increasingly conflicted with those of the British imperial government.
Britain’s victory in the Seven Years’ War resulted in a
substantial imperial debt. The Crown sought to increase revenue from the
colonies via taxes and tighter administrative oversight. This was not driven by
ethical concerns but by a material conflict between a growing bourgeois class
and a declining imperial system.
The colonies operated as economically capitalist entities
but remained politically subordinate to a monarchical and aristocratic state.
This contradiction—capitalist economic relations existing under feudal
political structures—was the root of the revolutionary crisis. The Declaration
represents the ideological resolution to this conflict.
The Declaration’s phrases—“self-evident truths,”
“unalienable rights,” “consent of the governed”—embody the core principles of
Enlightenment rationalism. However, Enlightenment ideas were not purely
abstract philosophy; they formed the ideological foundation of an advancing
bourgeois class.
Locke’s theory of natural rights mainly served to justify
private property. His well-known idea that property comes from labour isn't an
absolute truth but rather a bourgeois rationalisation that supports capitalist
accumulation. Jefferson’s version— “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness”—also reflects this classical perspective. The rights declared in the
Declaration appear universal in structure but are bourgeois in substance.
The statement that “all men are created equal” was not a
philosophical assertion. Instead, it served as a political tool to oppose
aristocracy, monarchy, and inherited privilege. In this context, equality
referred to equal legal status within a capitalist system, not equal social or
economic conditions.
The Declaration’s reference to “self-evident truths”
embodies the Enlightenment belief that society could be restructured based on
rational principles. This expressed the bourgeoisie’s desire to overthrow
irrational feudal systems. Reason was a revolutionary force—yet its
revolutionary potential was confined within the bounds of bourgeois society.
The main authors of the Declaration were members of the
colonial bourgeoisie, including lawyers, merchants, planters, and
intellectuals. They articulated grievances related to taxation, trade
restrictions, and imperial oversight, which were rooted in class interests.
While artisans, small farmers, and urban labourers also significantly
contributed to the revolutionary movement, their interests differed from those
of the bourgeois elite. However, the imperial crisis temporarily unified these
diverse groups with a shared purpose.
The Declaration’s universalism intentionally excluded
enslaved Africans and indigenous peoples, reflecting a deliberate choice tied
to the bourgeois revolution within a slave society. The tension between
universal equality and racial slavery is not merely moral but also reveals a
core contradiction in bourgeois property relations. Its most radical claim—that
people can "alter or abolish” any government threatening their
rights—appears revolutionary but fundamentally aligns with bourgeois interests.
The right of revolution was aimed at overthrowing monarchy
and aristocracy, serving as the ideological basis for dismantling feudal
political structures. While the bourgeoisie endorsed this right, they also
feared it might threaten their own class interests. Interestingly, the same
individuals who supported the right to overthrow oppressive governments also
suppressed Shays’ Rebellion and slave uprisings.
The Declaration’s revolutionary ideas could not be fully put
into practice within bourgeois society. Its focus on universal principles
extended beyond capitalism itself. This is why the Declaration served as the
ideological basis for the Civil War—the second American revolution—and why its
principles are still not fully realised today.
The Declaration’s ideological roots are in the bourgeois
revolution, but its future is with the working class. As the Socialist Equality
Party states, the true successors of 1776 are not the representatives of the
American ruling class, but the workers and youth fighting against inequality,
war, and the erosion of democratic rights. The Declaration remains vital—not
merely as a historical artefact, but as a revolutionary document that demands a
socialist transformation of society.
The Ideological
Function of Gordon Wood in American Historiography
Gordon S. Wood holds a unique place in American historical
scholarship. He is both the most renowned interpreter of the American
Revolution and a key defender of bourgeois ideological continuity. His
introduction to Edward L. Widmer’s The Living Declaration exemplifies this
duality. Wood describes the Declaration of Independence as the “most profound
manifesto of democratic revolution in history," but his framing diminishes
its revolutionary significance for today.
Wood’s prose is refined and erudite, yet his approach
remains largely conservative. He presents the Declaration as a victory of
enlightened thought, deliberately sidestepping the societal contradictions that
led to it and the volatile implications of its principles for modern
capitalism. His introduction doesn’t advocate for revolutionary change but
instead honours a heritage that has been safely preserved.
Wood’s opening highlights that the United States is “unique
because it was founded entirely on a set of philosophical ideas rather than
shared heritage or ethnicity.” This reflects Wood’s overall historiographical
approach: emphasising ideology over material conditions and portraying the
Revolution as a victory of enlightened ideas rather than as a struggle rooted
in class, colonial economics, or imperial crises.
The issue isn't that ideas had no role—they did. Instead,
Wood overlooks how social forces shaped these ideas. He views the Declaration
as a result of philosophical agreement, not a revolutionary break. That's why
Wood claims Jefferson’s statement that “all men are created equal” reflected the
mainstream enlightened thought of the time. But this is historically
questionable and politically telling. Equality wasn't just a conventional idea;
it challenged the entire hierarchical order dominated by monarchy, aristocracy,
and hereditary privilege. Wood’s approach trivialises the Revolution by framing
its most radical principle as a polite, common belief.
Wood emphasises Jefferson’s belief in a universal “moral
sense,” even among enslaved people, implying that this shared empathy helped
shape abolitionist arguments. This reflects Wood's typical approach: a
moral-philosophical interpretation that conceals the harsh material realities
of slavery and the economic motives behind it. Jefferson’s moral sense did not
stop him from enslaving people, nor did it prevent the new republic from
establishing a constitutional framework that protected slave property for
nearly a century. Wood’s reference to moral sense acts as a liberal
justification—an effort to reconcile the universal ideals in the Declaration
with the founders’ active participation in a slaveholding society.
A Marxist analysis begins from the opposite premise: the
contradiction between universal equality and private property in human beings
is not a moral paradox but a structural contradiction of bourgeois revolution.
Wood cannot confront this because his method is idealistic rather than
materialistic.
Wood’s introduction notably omits key points. He does not
mention the Declaration’s claim that people can “alter or abolish” governments
that threaten their rights. Additionally, he overlooks the relevance of this
principle during the Civil War, which Lincoln viewed as the embodiment of the
Declaration’s revolutionary ideas. Moreover, he neglects to consider how this
principle applies in a society controlled by a financial oligarchy.
Wood’s introduction celebrates the ideals of the Declaration
rather than analysing their outcomes. He commends the Revolution’s opposition
to aristocracy but overlooks the rise of a new wealthy aristocracy. While
praising equality, he ignores the significant inequality present in modern
America. This is intentional, as Wood’s purpose in American historiography is
to uphold the established order by framing the founding as a completed,
accomplished event rather than an ongoing revolutionary process.
The Political
Context: Wood vs the 1619 Project, and the Limits of Liberal Defence
Wood has been a notable critic of the New York Times’ 1619 Project, rightly pointing it out as a racialist distortion of history. However, his critique is constrained by his ideological biases. While he defends the Revolution against racial reductionism, he does so from a liberal perspective that fails to recognise the class struggles inherent in the Revolution or the enduring importance of its principles.The WSWS has shown that rejecting 1776 as a pro-slavery conspiracy, as the 1619 Project does, is both historically inaccurate and politically reactionary.However, Wood’s alternative—an idealist praise of enlightened ideas—falls short.It defends the founders but weakens the Declaration's revolutionary significance.
Wood criticises the racialist distortion of history but
fails to challenge the capitalist distortion. His introduction overlooks that
today's ruling class openly disregards every right listed in the Declaration.
He is unable to admit that the Declaration’s revolutionary ideals condemn the
social order he aims to maintain.
The Declaration as a
Living Document: Wood’s Title, Widmer’s Book, and the Marxist Alternative
Wood agrees with Widmer’s idea of a “living declaration,”
but he sees “living” as more conservative. To Wood, it’s alive because it
continues to inspire civic pride and a sense of democracy. Widmer, however,
believes it remains alive because each new generation has reinterpreted it. In
contrast, Marxists see the Declaration as alive because its ideals remain
unfulfilled, and achieving them would require a revolutionary societal change.
The Declaration remains alive not due to admiration but
because it continues to reveal the contradictions within capitalist society. It
stays relevant by affirming equality in a world marked by inequality and by
declaring the right to revolution against oligarchic rule. Wood, however,
cannot recognise this. His introduction romanticises the Declaration with
reverent language while diminishing its revolutionary power.
Gordon Wood’s introduction to The Living Declaration is a refined, knowledgeable and ultimately conservative piece. It extols the ideals of the Declaration while toning down their implications. It defends the Revolution from racialist distortions yet sidesteps the class conflicts that influenced it. While praising equality, it overlooks the capitalist system that makes such equality unachievable. Overall, Wood’s introduction is not a genuine living declaration but a sanitised version that serves the interests of the ruling class.
Widmer’s Method:
Liberal Antiquarianism in the Service of the Present Order
Widmer’s “biography” approach exemplifies the heritage
industry in American historiography, as the WSWS frequently criticises. Instead
of placing the Declaration within the ongoing dialectical evolution of
bourgeois revolution, Widmer regards it as a cultural artefact whose “life” is
shaped by how it has been received, reinterpreted, and symbolically employed
over time.
This approach yields three distinct effects: First, the
Revolution becomes depoliticised, as Widmer emphasises anecdotes,
personalities, and textual idiosyncrasies, while minimising the Declaration’s
significance as the ideological source of significant social change. Second,
the contradictions of the Revolution are viewed through a psychological lens,
transforming questions about class tensions, property rights, and slavery into
moral or personal dilemmas rather than material disputes. Third, the current situation
is presented as natural.
The Declaration as
Revolutionary Manifesto: What Widmer Cannot Confront
Widmer’s account cannot encompass the Declaration’s most
radical claim: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
This is not just a decorative element; it forms the heart of
the document. As David North stated, the principles of the Declaration
"were obtained through the application of scientific thought, i.e.,
Reason,” and their revolutionary power remains because they express universal,
not just colonial, claims.
Widmer’s biography treats this passage as a historical
footnote rather than an active critique of today’s capitalist oligarchy that
rules the United States. He fails to recognise that the Declaration’s
underlying logic extends beyond bourgeois society itself—suggesting that the
promise of equality conflicts with a social system in which a few billionaires
possess more wealth than the entire bottom half of humanity. Addressing this
would mean acknowledging the Declaration’s role in the Civil War—the so-called
"second American revolution”—and its ongoing significance to modern
working-class struggles. Yet, Widmer completely sidesteps this connection.
Widmer’s book comes at a time when the Declaration faces
fierce political debate. Two main forces drive this contest: The New York
Times’ 1619 Project criticises the Declaration as a hypocritical document meant
to defend slavery. As the WSWS has shown, this view is both historically
inaccurate and politically reactionary. It ignores the revolutionary
significance of 1776 and reduces the American Revolution to a racial myth.
Widmer does not oppose this false narrative; instead, it sidesteps it.
The ruling elite claims the Declaration as a patriotic
symbol while simultaneously ignoring every right it guarantees. Patrick Martin
pointed out that “Every basic right enumerated in it is openly flouted.” The
right to revolution is dismissed as sedition, extreme inequalities undermine
equality, and due process is compromised through widespread surveillance and
militarised policing. Widmer does not challenge this contradiction; instead, he
aestheticises it. In both instances, Widmer’s silence aligns with the
ideological interests of the current order. His biography does not defend the
revolutionary ideals of the Declaration but rather contributes to their
neutralisation.
Bourgeois Scholarship
and the Neutralisation of Revolution
Widmer’s book highlights the wider limitations of bourgeois
historiography. It lauds the Declaration as an element of America’s
“heritage" but neglects its revolutionary core. This aligns with James P.
Cannon’s warning: “Nobody can sell me the Fourth of July speeches which
represent the start as the finish and the promise as the fulfilment.” Widmer’s
biography resembles a Fourth of July speech in book form, presenting the
Declaration as a finished accomplishment instead of an ongoing revolutionary effort.
A truly critical biography of the Declaration would place it
in the context of the global crisis of the ancien régime and the emergence of
bourgeois revolution. It would examine its Enlightenment roots—drawing from
Locke, Scottish moral philosophers, and 18th-century scientific rationalism. It
would reveal contradictions in its founding, such as slavery, property
relations, and class conflicts. The biography would track its lasting
revolutionary influence, particularly in the Civil War and abolition movements.
It would also show its incompatibility with modern capitalism, where equality
cannot exist under private ownership of the means of production. The biography
would highlight the working class as the agent capable of realising its
promise. However, Widmer's biography does none of these; it is not a living
Declaration but an embalmed one.
Conclusion: The
Declaration Lives—But Not in Widmer’s Book
Widmer’s The Living Declaration is a refined, accessible,
and ultimately conservative account. It provides a biography of the Declaration
that is suitable for corporate publishers, university lectures, and Fourth of
July celebrations. It avoids addressing the Declaration’s revolutionary
potential today or recognising the social forces that could bring its promises
to fruition. The Declaration endures—though not within Widmer’s family-friendly
narrative. It persists in the working class's struggles against inequality,
war, and the erosion of democratic rights. Its principles serve as a critique
of tyranny and a rallying cry for revolutionary change. Widmer’s book is a
biography; the working class will author the sequel.
